The applicant, Mr Milan Řehák, is a Czech national,
who was born in 1954 and lives in Olomouc.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant,
may be summarised as follows.

The applicant was an anti-communist dissident.
On 25 April 1980 he was charged with parasitism (příživnictví) and detained on remand. On 13 May 1980 he
was released. On 2 June 1980 the criminal proceedings were discontinued
under the presidential amnesty of 8 May 1980, the criminal offence being
re-qualified as a minor offence (přečin). The decision was served on the applicant's lawyer
on 1 February 1995. On 24 February 1995 the Olomouc District Prosecutor (okresní státní
zástupce) discontinued the criminal proceedings on the ground
that the act imputed to the applicant did not constitute an offence.

Proceedings concerning the applicant's
action for damages

On 16 December 1991 the applicant sued the Olomouc
District Police Directorate (okresní ředitelství policie) for damages under the State
Liability Act. He claimed that, in the criminal proceedings instituted
against him, the police officers had acted unlawfully. These proceedings
were still pending in February 2004, after being examined at several
instances, with discontinuances due to the applicant's failure to specify
his claims fully, decisions being quashed on three occasions and the
case being re-considered accordingly.

Other proceedings initiated by the applicant

In a letter of 7 October 2002 addressed to Czech
Telecom (Český
telecom), the applicant complained that his name and address
had been included in the telephone directory, contrary to an amendment
to his contract with this company on 1st November 2001, and that his
telephone had been intercepted. He claimed damages of CZE 200,000.

On 15 November 2002 Czech Telecom apologized
for the administrative mistake concerning the publication of the applicant's
name and address, assuring the applicant that the mistake had been rectified
in the meantime. They informed him that the telecom network connected
to his telephone line had been controlled and that any unlawful interception
had been excluded.

On 1st January 2003 the applicant requested the
Olomouc District Police Directorate to institute criminal proceedings
against the Security and Information Service of the Czech Republic (Bezpečnostní
a informační služba ČR) and Czech Telecom on the ground that
they had illegally intercepted his telephone and had handled his personal
data. On 16 January 2003 the applicant was heard in this connection at
the police station. His request was examined but no criminal proceedings
were brought.

The applicant's correspondence with the
registry of the Court

In a letter of 17 March 2003, the applicant alleged
that he and certain lawyers had agreed that “the genocide of fundamental
human rights in the Czech Republic is so vast that it extends to the
Czech Registry of the European Court”. He asked the Court to send
its decision, which he expected to be negative given his view as to
the partiality of Czech Court staff, in a registered letter. He insisted
that the decision be fully reasoned. In connection with his previous
case [Application no. 55376/00 was declared inadmissible by a committee
of three judges on 21 May 2002. The applicant was informed of this by
the Registry's letter of 7 June 2002, pursuant to Rule 53 § 2 of the
Rules of Court, which provides that “In accordance with Article 28
of the Convention, the Committee may, by a unanimous vote, declare inadmissible
an application or strike it out of the Court's list of cases where such
a decision can be taken without further examination. This decision shall
be final. The applicant shall be informed of the Committee's decision
by letter.”], the applicant noted:

[Translation]

“... not even criminal communist tribunals
sent their decisions without reasoning .... What you have done is tantamount
to approval of theft and, therefore, amounts to a crime from the position
of a sort of 'terrestrial God'. The proof of this is not only the Czech
[part of the Registry]'s ignorant reaction to my justified request to
be provided with the 'preparatory' materials on the basis of which 'decision
was taken'.” I do not consider the decision of a sort of section,
assisted by your Bulgarian colleagues, to be a decision of the Court
as such.”

In a letter of 3 March 2004, the applicant accused, inter alia,
the Czech membership of the Registry of having successfully “disguised”
the applications of democratically orientated citizens with a view to
depriving them of human rights “once and for all”, and of having
accomplices in the form of Romanian, Bulgarian or other left-leaning
- and therefore partial - judges and administrators of the Court.

On 23 March 2004, in reply to a letter of 17
March 2004 from the Section Registrar, the applicant said that the latter
in fact confirmed “that the co-creators of the criminal communist
regime and supporters of the freakish communist ideology ([Czech members
of the registry]) ... serve[d] your Court well given that this Court
employ[ed] them”. He continued as follows:

[Translation]

“ ... Today, when I know that your glorious
Court is full of STB and KGB [The secret services of former Czechoslovakia
and the Soviet Union] agents, I'm not surprised that you defend people
who, thanks to their week characteristic qualities, pushed themselves
forward to achieve their personally advantageous goals (troughs) (koryta)
[This term, meaning a trough, is used to refer to the attainment of
personal aims even where the rights of others are violated] collaborating
with the freakish communist regime which they helped to establish, and
scrambling on the backs of those who suffered and suffer because of
the communist regime. ...

Your Court, with the great help of and thanks
to the Czech Registry ... liquidates fundamental human rights! ... I
have my own former experience when the Court prevented me from freely
using [my] property and left it at the mercy and for the benefit of
the communist thieves, without any reasoning whatsoever! (see my application
no. 55376/00). In doing so, your glorious Court consecrated crimes of
the communist regime and communist tribunals. Thank you! ...”

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1
of the Convention that the proceedings concerning his action for damages
have lasted an unreasonably long time.

In his letter to the Court Registry of 27 January
2003, he expressed his dissatisfaction with the fact that Czech Telecom
was not deemed responsible for the unlawful publication of his personal
data in the public telephone directory, which he considers to be incompatible
with the principle of the rule of law.

THE LAW

The Court notes that the applicant has sent a
number of letters making serious defamatory and groundless accusations
about the integrity of certain judges of the Court and members of its
Registry. Furthermore, the applicant, who has systematically questioned
and contested the impartiality of judges of the Court and members of
its Registry, accuses Czech members of the Registry of serious political
crimes.

In seeking to ensure the widest possible circulation
of his accusations and insults, the applicant has evidenced his determination
to harm and tarnish the reputation of the very institution of European
Court of Human Rights, its members and staff.

The Court recalls that, in principle, an application
may only be rejected as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention
if it was knowingly based on untrue facts, even if it uses offensive
language (see Duringer and others and Grunge v. France (dec.), nos.
61164/00 and 18589/02; Varbanov v. Bulgaria, judgment 5 October 2000, no. 31365/96,
§ 36, ECHR 2000-X; Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 16 September 1996, Reports of Judgments
and Decisions 1996-IV, pp. 1210 and 1211, §§ 53 and 54). However,
in the present case, the Court is of the opinion that the applicant's
allegations are intolerable, exceeding the bounds of normal criticism,
albeit misplaced, and amount to contempt of court. Such conduct
by the applicant – even supposing that his original application would
not be deemed manifestly ill-founded - is contrary to the purpose of
the right of individual petition, as provided for in Articles 34 and
35 of the Convention. There is no doubt whatsoever that it constitutes
an abuse of the right of application within the meaning of Article 35
§ 3 of the Convention.

It follows that the present case must be rejected
as an abuse of the right of application, pursuant to Article 35 §§
3 and 4 of the Convention.